State v. McCombs

A defendant’s statement can only be used to corroborate the defendant’s confession if it is made for some other purpose other than to acknowledge guilt, and if it not so closely related to the confession as to become part of it.

Appellant appealed his conviction of first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, and first-degree sexual penetration. On appeal, appellant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress his inculpatory statements confessing to the conduct underlying the convictions, the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the imposition of 300-month prison sentences and 100-month post-prison supervision.

Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to corroborate his confession on both the first-degree rape and first-degree sexual penetration. To commit first-degree rape, a person must be found to have “ha[d] sexual intercourse with another person” under 12 years of age. ORS 163.375(1)(b). First-degree sexual penetration includes conduct where a “person penetrates the * * * anus * * * of another with any object” and that the person is under 12 years of age. ORS 163.411(1)(b). State v. Manzella states that a defendant’s statement can only be used to corroborate the defendant’s confession if it is made for some other purpose other than to acknowledge guilt, and if it not so closely related to the confession as to become part of it. Defendant also argued that his inculpatory statements were made involuntarily and that his sentences were constitutionally disproportionate because of his history with PTSD under Article 1, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Court found that, by a totality of the circumstances, appellant’s statements were taken voluntarily. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal except for first-degree sexual penetration because appellant’s confession, paired with other evidence admitted by the state, enabled the jury to draw an inference that tended to establish appellant’s culpability. However, appellant’s earlier statements regarding sexual penetration were insufficient to corroborate his confession. Further, the Court affirmed appellant’s sentences because the severity of the penalty was congruent with the gravity of the crimes, the sentences are not disproportionate, and his lack of criminal history carries little weight.

Conviction on count 3 reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.